Kaep

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/12/30/population-is-the-world-ready-for-7-billion/

http://www.prb.org/Journalists/PressReleases/2011/2011-world-population-data-sheet.aspx

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/pgr/

The rate of adding those billions is slowing down.....

The only issue is the less developed countries, not the West....

The population statistical models make ridiculous assumptions:
First failure will be 1-billion people > 8 billion (NOT 7.5 billion) by 2022. The second will be 3-4 billion @ 2050 due to WAR and disease. History guarantees this - blind statistics(GIGO) can't include various historical-tipping-point indicators.

1. Population growth in all species is NOT technology dependent , it is free-ENERGY dependent. Without free energy progressive technologies can't be developed, function or maintained. Oil will be plentiful to 2025 and then supplies will CRASH. Coal, renewables, nuclear are all TOTALLY dependent on OIL. We know, from WWI & WWII that coal alone will only support ~2 billion people before global warfare erupts. Without oil , the technologies that can prevent war will be useless. Imagine a police force that had to ration motor fuel and oil! The bikies would run major cities for starters.

2. The reasons developing countries are so fertile all revolve around First world FREE-MARKETS based on money that costs a few cents to print but which can buy a full dollar of 3rd world commodities.
Print enough dollars and a street sweeper from america can Run the Congo- and probably does. Its the corruption that leads to anarchy, violence that force populations to breed out of fear and BOREDOM.

3. Bogus charity organisations provide food to keep MARKET populations growing. What you see in the disparity of 1st to 3rd world population is in large part engineered and is the REAL powerhouse of 1st world economies. The reason for the slack statistical assumptions is deliberate. If 3rd worlders knew the truth they would rebel . See Nigeria which just had its petrol subsidies removed along with most of its once plentiful oil reserves.

4. Countries like Australia are not getting off scot-free. Our JSF committment alone will be paid in real dollars while the planes are built in US dollars printed for a few cents each. Also the JSF will be obsolete before the first one hits our shores. Pilotless drones already have cut US defence budgets by nearly 1$Trillion.

KAEP,

There is nothing wrong with a fertility rate of 1.5, and all else being equal, it would stop population growth more quickly. You and I both know, however, that all else will not be equal. The politicians will simply boost the immigration rate to get the numbers that they crave, regardless of whatever we do. There may even be *more* people. This is because fertility tends to remain high for longer in areas with high emigration, as shown in a number of studies, including some comparing Caribbean islands or Welsh villages with or without high emigration (see the references to Chapter 3 of Virginia Abernethy's population politics).

People who believe that some of their children are going to emigrate worry less about them having enough land or jobs close to home. They may even believe that a larger family gives them a better chance of getting at least one child into a developed country, from which he or she can send home remittances or facilitate the immigration of other relatives. Furthermore, migrants from some ethnic groups may have larger families in the land of milk and honey than they would have had at home. This is because they believe that they can now afford the very large family sizes idealised by their culture. Mexican fertility was 3.5 in California when it was 2.5 in Mexico.

The Malthusian trap was not an invention of evil Westerners. People have been overpopulating, overexploiting their environment, and killing each other over land and resources since before there were modern humans. What needs explanation is when people stop doing it.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/may/featwar

Divergence,

"Global Footprint Network certainly accepts it too, as they say that globally we are in about 40% environmental overshoot, about as dire a statement as you can get"

Except 41% is more dire.

"That is why I would say perhaps 1 to 2 billion"

You are making my point. If you really think the GFN is making a quality estimate, then why would you estimate something dramatically different?

The point I want to make is that these estimate cannot be used to convince anyone that our numbers are too high. They are trivial to debate and argue. Even if you and I debate these numbers with both of us arguing for numbers that are lower than the GFN number, the take home message for someone listening will be that nobody knows, thus we might not be in overshoot.

In contrast, this statement: "we must get our numbers down below the point where we are not consuming resources, that are essential to provide for our numbers, faster than they renew" is not debatable. The listener either understands it, and agrees, or they don't comprehend it.

This distinction is important. We must embark on an education campaign that will transform all societies so that it is known that we must limit our births. We don't have the right to have as many children as we want. That education campaign can have basic truths like that sentence. It won't do well with debatable estimates like the GFN's.